Luke Faraone wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 20:28, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > If anything, they probably already know
> > how Nix works and are expecting it to use those paths. There doesn't seem
> > to be much drawback in this carefully-chosen lack of compliance with the
> > FHS.
> >
> > I don't th
Thanks to everybody for your input. I will add a lintian override to
Nix.
Kai
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 20:28, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If anything, they probably already know
> how Nix works and are expecting it to use those paths. There doesn't seem
> to be much drawback in this carefully-chosen lack of compliance with the
> FHS.
>
> I don't think it's worth writing an explicit
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Nix and non-standard-toplevel-dir"):
> I think this is a case where we should waive FHS for this package, due to
> the unique nature of this package.
I agree for the reasons Russ gives.
> I don't think it's worth writing an explicit Polic
Kai Harries writes:
> I have filled an ITP for the Nix package-manager [1]. During packaging
> lintian pointed out [2] that Nix relies on a non-standard-toplevel-dir.
> The Nix package-manager keeps by default all packages in the path
> `/nix/store`. In principal this path can be changed, but it
Hi Kai,
> I have filled an ITP for the Nix package-manager [1].
As it happens, I did some work on this in early 2017:
https://salsa.debian.org/lamby/pkg-nix
.. but I ran out of bandwidth to persue it. I believe others on
this list took up the challenge too.
Regards,
--
,''`.
:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 07:10:06PM +0100, Kai Harries wrote:
> [4] https://nixos.org/~eelco/pubs/phd-thesis.pdf
This is an interesting text. It shows that the author has read the FHS but
chose to ignore it. The only ref to FHS is in the following text:
"""
For instance, storing components in an es
7 matches
Mail list logo
